The closer election day and the more likely a positive outcome for the Democratic ticket, the more you can see and hear about Sarah Palin getting ready for a 2012 run for the nomination.
This got me wondering: has anyone ever won the nomination of their party or even the presidency after being the running mate on a losing ticket?
Follow me below the fold for what I found. Let's just say history does not bode well for Palin 2012.
You might have heard last summer about Mitt Romney's strapping his dog to his roof on family vacations, which created a bit of a kerfuffle in the primary campaign last summer. But we haven't heard too much about Sarah Palin's cruel streak, which makes Romney's Irish Setter's unpleasant travel pale in comparison.
Of course, Palin's no animal lover. She's put extraordinary effort into undoing federal wildlife protections for polar bears, beluga whales, and pretty much any other animal that gets in the way of the oil industry's plans.
But her wolf bounty really takes the cake for animal cruelty. One of Palin's first acts in office was to put a $150 bounty on the heads of her state's wolves, allegedly with the goal of increasing the moose and caribou population. But this was no ordinary hunt: it was meant to incentivize the aerial killing of wolves, in which private hunters take a small plane and chase down wolf packs until they're exhausted and can't move any more, when they either shoot them from the air or land and execute them at point blank range. Then, they strap the wolf to a plane, cut off the wolf's left forearm, and bring it to the state Department of Fish and Game for their cash reward.
Here's a video from Defenders of Wildlife that shows what aerial wolf hunting is all about:
I know the unorthodoxy of this choice makes Obama supporters want to celebrate - but in fact this is a very solid choice. Newness doesn't last long - it fades almost instantly - and while people may be hesitant about such a newbie for president - she's not running for president. YES-it makes me uncomfortable to imagine her as next in line - but next is still not NOW. More importantly - Palin shores up McCain's base - and is attractive from a "woman in the white house" point of view. She's pro-life, pro-guns, pro-drilling. That's a conservative trifecta. More importantly - the ONLY real effective argument against Palin is Clinton. Biden will have to be really careful in his debate against her because on the one hand he can wipe the floor with her, but on the other hand, optically - he could wind up looking like a bully. So - this choice ties one hand behind Biden's back. I think he can win anyway - but he's got a LOT of prep to do for tone - he's got to go against Michelle, Hillary, Pelosi, and a couple of other women in private (focus group watched) debates to gauge tone against a variety of female personas. And the pro-life argument has to come from a woman - there will be no woman in any of the debates. WORSE - Obama came across to some women as smug when up against Hillary, s he's got to tread very carefully.
No - this is a very smart choice for McCain, and while it is a beatable ticket - it's not an easily beatable one.
McCain strategy: win election by exploiting Democratic primary divisions and crass gender politics
My take: This will fail. McCain is ignorantly falling for the same conventional wisdom as so many in the media - but his assumptions are false, false, false.
The CW narrative goes like this: "Obama and Clinton had a nasty primary fight, and lots of white Democratic women ('PUMAs' and their sympathizers) are skittish of Obama as a result. Even if Clinton's speech this week began to reassure these women, they can still be peeled off, by appealing to McCain's incredible Maverickosity so that they ignore their Democratic Party instincts, and by appealing to their desire to elect a woman to executive federal office, an opportunity they were denied by Obama's defeat of Clinton." Sounds scary, right?
Too bad my good friend Mr. Actual Polling Results tells me a different story.
(full analysis, reader poll, and additional McCain strategies and rebuttals below the fold!)
I'm not going to do the standard progressive blog post about how I'm glad it's Biden because even though he's not a progressive, he's better than Bayh or Kaine. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I really like this choice a lot in and of itself.
Everyone is talking about how the text message scheme went awry - some cretin in the campaign spilled the beans to CNN's John King - making the media, not the people the first to know that Joe Biden was Obama's VP pick.
OK - but - wasn't it fun? This had almost as much drama as election night. All of us were glued to our computers, our cell phones, our smart phones, etc - waiting for news of the vice presidential pick. Honestly - I don't know if I would have been this excited about the decision if I hadn't signed up to BE excited about it. I was unsure if anyone would care about being the "first to know" - and only circulated the news because I thought it would be worthwhile to get others on the broadcast list. But just the fact of signing up, meant that I was anticipating this news, and increased my interest.
In short - even the news interest was heightened because we were all waiting on the notice - and the official notice was not anti-climactic - it was "official."
One thing the Obama campaign has succeeded in - has been garnering enthusiasm. In this - the texting campaign was a smashing success.
In the next 24 hours (maybe less) Barack will decide that he's ridden McMansionGate long enough and that it's time to push the button on his cell phone and send a VP announcement text message to millions of Americans.
In the meantime, way too many of us in the Netroots are sitting around refresh-refresh-refreshing our browsers and hoping Mark Helperin or Howard Fineman will drop some crumb of insight that salves our fears and reassures us that it's not Dick Lugar (or, you know, whoever - stay calm, stay calm).
Since even the monkeys at the Washington Post are apt to accidentally type a few lines of Hamlet once in a while, I'm opting to take Howard Kurtz' advice:
Why wait for the actual event? Whip out that keyboard and tell everyone what you think about Obama's VP choice right now.
Consider this an open thread for you to expound, in your infinite wisdom, on your Final Predictions for the the Obama Veepstakes.
A lot of bloggers have been hoping to see former Presidential Candidate, General Wesley Clark be tapped for Obama's number two spot. Of late, that likelihood has been slim at best. He hasn't been mentioned on any press short lists, he was a Clinton supporter in the primary (of course, so was oft-mentioned "short-lister" Evan Bayh of Indiana), and when he made the obvious (and highly appropriate) observation on national television that being shot down in Vietnam is not a qualification to be President, the Obama campaign couldn't distance itself fast enough in response to GOP criticism.
In fact, all things being equal (and given recent news reports about Bayh's early and steady support for the Iraq War), it seemed likely that Governor Kathleen Sebelius (who has been my first choice) was likely to get the nod (until she popped up with a Tuesday night Convention speaking slot and given the renewed Bayh rumors today. Arg.)
But in light of the violence in Georgia, the aggressive movements of the Bush administration, and the corresponding full court press by the McCain camp to exploit the conflict as a full-scale campaign showcase, it seems like a no-brainer that the Obama campaign will probably look anew at former NATO commander Clark who would have an easier time shining a light on any dangerous adventurism from the administration, as well as any crass political exploitation from McCain and company than would Obama alone, or an Obama/Sebelius combo.
In any event, expect to hear very soon. Maybe even Saturday to make the Sunday talk shows and newspaper headlines. It'll be important not to make the announcement too close to the convention, to maximize coverage and avoid letting it simply be absorbed into the convention media coverage.
I, for one, would like to see Clark for several reasons. He's not perfect by a long shot, but he was (among other things) one of the only Presidential candidates or potential Presidential candidates to come out early and clearly for Single-Payer Health Care - certainly as big a progressive priority as you'll find.
The same names keep popping up for Obama's VP choice: Dodd, Sebelius, Bayh, Biden, and Kaine seem to be the consensus favorites. But if we want to think strategically here, can't we throw out the Senators? We will need long standing Senators to shepherd legislation through Congress next year especially now that a 60 vote majority is looking unlikely.
I suppose I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the chatter about Evan Bayh as VP. Karen Tumulty at Time says that insiders are buzzing about this clip where Bayh takes on Joe Lieberman on Fox News.
I just ran into a long-time insider who told me that he got three phone calls yesterday about Bayh, and I spent time with a strong Hillary-backing retired Admiral months ago who told me that Bayh was going to be her pick. So Bayh is a strong establishment pick, similar to Tom Daschle (who I've also heard rumors about).
Now, Evan Bayh reminds me mostly of Dan Quayle, a mostly stupid empty suit who goes along with whatever the Beltway establishment wants at the time. When he started running for President, his voting record went left, and then after he dropped out, he returned to his conservative roots. In fact, if you look at his record, as Teddy Partridge points out, he's a gay baiting anti-choice neoconservative that looks like a Ken Doll. He's even from Indiana. Please, Senator Obama, don't give us Dan Quayle. It didn't work out for Daddy Bush, and it's not going to work out for you.
The ObamaClark.com campaign is already getting to the Villagers, who keep throwing tantrums that someone had the gall to suggest that McCain's military service doesn't automatically qualify him to be President. This time, it's Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press who decided to dredge up the faux outrage the very week we launched the http://www.obamaclark.com (to rounds of praise in some parts of the blogosphere and rounds of gagging within the establishment). And it was John Kerry that stabbed Clark in the back, the same John Kerry who Clark defended multiple times from the Swift Boat guys.
Crooks and Liars has the video, but the transcript is just as disgusting.
MR. BROKAW: We're going to get to all those issues, but I also want to raise what a surrogate for Senator Obama had to say to my friend Bob Schieffer on "Face the Nation." This is former General Wesley Clark talking about John McCain. He said, "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." He described him as untested and untried. With all due respect, Senator Kerry, he could have been talking about your qualifications. You're a Vietnam veteran...
SEN. KERRY: Yeah, I, I don't agree. I don't agree with Wes Clark's comment. I think it was entirely inappropriate. I have nothing but enormous respect for John McCain's service. I had the privilege of standing with John McCain in the, in the cell in Hanoi when we visited there together, when we worked on the issue of Vietnam together. It was an emotional moment. I, I have awe for John McCain's experience as a prisoner of war, and he, and he does understand duty and service. But...
MR. BROKAW: But unless...
SEN. KERRY: But...
MR. BROKAW: Unless I missed it, though, Senator Obama has not specifically rebuked Wesley Clark's comments.
SEN. KERRY: Oh, I think they-I thought-I did, and others did, and I thought Obama had at the time. But here's what's important, Tom. Let's not get lost in this, you know-John McCain said this ought to be about big ideas. Medicare is about to implode. You know, John McCain has a health care plan that every expert has said does nothing for the people who have no health care.
There are many reasons that Kerry, who these same hissy fit throwing establishment hacks backed in 2004, lost, and I'm not one to say that it was the Swift Boat Vets that were the only cause. It's hard to run against a President running during wartime, and Kerry got kind of a bad rap on the race. But it was the Swift Boat Vet episode during which it became obvious that as leader of the Democratic Party, John Kerry wasn't going to preserve his dignity and self-respect against a group of dishonest thugs, nor would he spend one iota of effort to preserve the millions of people in the party he was supposed to represent.
And he continues to secure this honorable legacy every day.
Matthew Yglesias thinks we're overreaching by imputing intentions to Obama based on his VP pick.
The best guide to how Obama intends to govern isn't who he picks as VP, it's the stuff he's said about how he intends to govern and what he hopes to accomplish. That'd put him to the left of the Clinton-Gore era of the Democratic Party but to the right of the Open Left vision of where the party ought to be, and that'll still be the case no matter who Obama picks.
I don't think that's true for three reasons. One, Obama has consistently said he's picking a VP candidate based on how that candidate will help him govern. Two, we have no reason to trust that what Obama says in this campaign is what he intends to do as President. The FISA example, which I'll go into below, shows that Obama thinks nothing of breaking promises to liberals. Three, even if he follows through on the promises he hasn't broken, I don't see how his overall policy platform is substantially to the left of the Clinton/Gore administration. As a brief but significant example, in place of Clinton/Gore's 'peace dividend', or a cut in military spending, Obama has promised to grow the size of the military.
During the primary, to attract liberal support, Obama said that he would filibuster any bill with retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies in it. He then voted for a bill with retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies in it. When doing so, he pronounced it a 'good compromise', even though he had earlier run a primary campaign criticizing the false choice between security and liberty.
The truth is we have no idea whether Obama will do anything he has promised policy-wise, but we do know that if he picks Tim Kaine as VP that Tim Kaine will be the Vice President. Given that the last two Vice Presidents have been very powerful, and that Obama is saying he wants a partner-in-governance, it seems likely that his VP pick is a strong signal of what kind of administration he intends to run. And given that he lied to liberal activists and then pretended that he didn't on a policy promise, it's probably a safe bet to consider that Obama is going to repeat the pattern.
Update: Some people are saying that I'm contradicting myself by suggesting that we believe Obama when he says that he's picking a VP based on who will help him govern, but disbelieve when he puts out various policy ideas. Actually, what I'm saying is that if you accept that his word is good on his policy ideas, then you must also accept that his word is good on why he's choosing his VP. If you think his word is not good on his policy ideas, then we don't really know why he's choosing his VP, all we know is that this person is actually going to be in the White House as his VP. And who is in the White House matters.
One by one they fall. In watching the VP media chatter, I've been struck by the number of people insisting that they don't want to be vice president.
The conventional wisdom on the subject suggests that this is just standard practice - say you don't want the job to be polite (if so, it's a stupid practice. Sorta like saying no thank you to food when you are in fact, hungry. Your host just might take you at your word...). But some politicians have really gone out of the way to be written off. The entire Virginia delegation seems to be quite content where they are, as is Gore and as is Edwards. In fact, I only remember 3 politicians going against this bit of conventional wisdom - Biden, Clinton, and Hagel.
This diary is really an open question. What the heck is going on? Are there reasons why someone would legitimately NOT want to serve as Vice President? I can think of a few. For instance, I don't think Hillary should want or accept the Vice Presidency. I think it undersells her talents. I can see Gore and Edwards not wanting the post - Edwards because he already ran as VP and might not want to do it again (and then the fact that his wife is fighting cancer - I can see him prioritizing home and family), Gore because - been there, done that, and he's bigger than the Vice Presidency at present. But the Virginia contingent actually worries me, as does the refusal of the role by travelling companion Jack Reed. Why don't they want the job?
Some cynical part of me thinks that Obama's promising choices are being paid (in money or favors) to sit out, so that someone else will have to be the next choice. Another part of me thinks that white men aren't going to do so well with having a black boss (in this, I appreciate Biden's honesty. He didn't frame it in terms of black and white - but he DID express an uncertainty about being able to work for ANYONE, having been his own boss for so many years). But thinking more positively - are there other good explanations for people to avoid being Obama's vp?
Though it's good Jim Webb beat George Allen in 2006, he has been mostly a major tool of conservative interests in the Senate on such issues as economics, war funding, and civil liberties. On drilling, coal, and nuclear energy, he's no different.
Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), fresh from his GI Bill victory, said that he is now making energy a major priority. "We need to look at all our assets," he said, suggesting a large package including expanded offshore drilling, alternative energy, nuclear power and technology to make coal cleaner.
Drilling? Clean coal? Nuclear? Really?
Get used to this kind of mushy DC elitist crap for the next few years.
Ah, and remember in 2007, when Webb promised to show leadership on Iraq if Bush refused to change course?
Obama's FISA betrayal this week puts a different spin on the strength that Edwards has shown as a VP candidate--it contrasts sharply with Edwards' performance as a progressive. Last week, I wrote about Edwards' strength as a case of "brand recognition" rather than simply "name recognition." This week provides more evidence of this, contrasting him with local politicians in three states--Ohio, New Mexico and Missouri--and taking another look back at Iowa. Now that we have data from two sets of candidates in nine states, Iowa provides evidence that Edwards did significantly better there than his already strong showings elsewhere--a strong indication that (a) the name recognition argument is oversold, and (b) further exposure to Edwards' brand has the potential to increase his already considerable strength even further.
However, I don't just want to dwell on the fact of Edwards' brand, I also want to stress the nature of that brand, which is that of a progressive populist.
This is often missed by those who look at his support and see a lot of self-described "conservative Democrats." But, of course, this is partly because of how people have come to identify as such. In fact, many so-called "conservative Democrats" are more economically liberal than so-called "liberal Democrats". This is part of the larger overall problem of trying to characterize the electorate in terms of how people describe themselves, as opposed to what they say they want, believe and care about.
I'll be writing a more general diary about that later today, but suffice it to say that as far back as 1967 it was established that a majority of self-described conservatives are either liberal or moderate on social spending issues--the heart of New Deal liberalism. This is one of the most firmly established and significant facts in public opinion research, and yet it is routinely ignored by the punditalkcrazy, because it would totally contradict their cherished narrative of a center-right nation.
For now, however, I want to catch up on the 5 new VP polls that Survey USA released this week--Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Missouri and Ohio--do a little comparative analysis to further consolidate the care for Edwards' unmatched strength, and extend the argument that this strength is evidence of an economic liberalism--aka "progressive populism"--that is deeply disturbing to the establishment.
This is, of course, directly in line with David Sirota's argument in The Uprising. And it also suggests that Obama is not likely to pick Edwards, despite the "pragmatist" narrative about him, which, of course, also took a hit from his FISA stance.
First off, I want to reiterate that I am not personally invested in Edwards for VP. I am, however, invested in bulding thr progressive coaltion within and beyond the Democratic Party. Right now, there are compelling reasons to support Edwards for VP as a means for building the progressive coalition. If others have arguments for other candidates within this framework, I will be happy to entertain them as well. What I want to stress here is the development of arguments that help clarify the strategic options and openings that can help advance a progressive agenda, and those that can make it more difficult, or simply distract from it.
(1) The Deep Reinforcement Argument: Essence. The basic argument for Edwards is that he would be a deeply reinforcing vice presidential candidate, Rather than "balancing" Obama in a way that inadvertantly but necessarily highlights his weaknesses, Edwards would reinforce Obama's strengths-just as Chris has argued that a VP candidate should, as first explained in his diary, "On Choosing A Vice-President". In today's nationally-integrated media environment, every message at least potentially goes everywhere (YouTube, anyone?), thus magnifying the advantages of a reinforcing candidate, while magnifying the downside of a balancing one.
This is not a general-purpose argument for Edwards as VP. I'll be posting that argument later today. Rather, this is a diary focused specifically on the most prominent argument against Edwards-that his consistent and impressive showing in the SUSA VP matchup polls only shows that he has name recognition, and any candidate chosen will have that, after the convention, at least. This diary is heavily dependent on comments made by two individuals late in the discussion of my previous diary, "SUSA--New VP Polls Show Edwards Still Unchallenged"-- Blue November and BruinKid.
Blue November focused on the difference between name recognition and brand recognition, arguing that what Edwards has is not simply name recoginition, but brand recognition-and that's something that can't just get overnight. BruinKid focused attention on the matchups in Minnesota, and presented an argument about why they are more revealing of Edwards' strengths than people have realized. In a separate comment, BruinKid also pointed to a DKos diary from late last year in which he shows that North Carolina was one of just three states where Bush did worse in 2004 than he did in 2000. Bush even did better in Kerry's home state in 2004 than he did in 2000-but not in North Carolina. It's a major body blow for the argument that Edwards had no impact in 2004-which in turn is part of the "it's only name recognition" argument. ("It's only name recognition, see, he didn't do anything as Kerry's running mate.")
Survey USA has released four new polls from a new round of vice presidential polling, and the big news is that there is no big news. Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota and California all produced basically similar results--there were no VP standouts. The VP candidates on both sides were all new, and John Edwards remains the only candidate who significantly and/or consistently helps Barack Obama. Otherwise, Obama tends to loss support--both among Democrats and independents--when shifting from head-to-head matchups to running as a team.
Oh yeah. One more thing. They tried Bloomberg out on both tickets. Turns out he does better as a Republican. Who'da thunk it? The results from Iowa (rounds #1 and #2) are as follows:
The best one can say for Webb is that his numbers don't suck. But they don't really help, either. More on all four states on the flip.
Clark is just great at going after McCain. I have not seen anyone attack McCain like this except Clark; not Sam Nunn, not Jim Webb, not Kathleen Sebelius.
I was going to stay out of the VP debates, because as I mentioned the other day the formula for getting it right is really complex, and I could easily make a case pro and con for a bunch of different folks. But because it is all everyone wants to talk about in DC these days, I have continued to think about it as I have listened to everyone's arguments and counter-arguments, and I have decided that I do indeed have a favorite. Since I know all of you are just dying to know what I think (okay, maybe not, but what the hell), here's my argument.
